I know the accounts and testimonies of our own people inside out, believe me. But in former arguments , err, debattes, we had you implied that argentine sources may be a little sqeeded, and that our authors may not have a clue about the meaning of historicall research.

Some testimonies, not all, KJ. I was prolly thinking of that nonsense about slaughtering doped up Gurkhas wearing Walkmans in Con's book, and the trouble Middlebrook had getting sensible answers to his enquiries. If the testimony passes the critical thinking test and fits with other evidence, all well and good. Personally I'd be interested in reading more decent Argentine accounts as there are not many translated into English AFAIK.

I all excited. Keep up the good work.

Steady, I'm not paying your laundry bill if you wet yourself...

My grammar stinks, I'm not even sure what I intended to write. Anyhow, RMs certainly heard a lot of noise, and "claimed" it was a ferociuos attack with MGs and grenades. This remains "unconfirmed".

Maybe, but it is still better than my Spanish... Ref the unconfirmed bit, that appears to be because it may not have happened, but I think "assumed" is a better word than "claimed" for reasons I will explain later. No time now.

SNIP BTW, I think I still have a Joker up my sleeve in this game, regarding visual confirmation of the state of the barracks.

Wouldn't be the fact that Galtieri and Menendez had a conference there c.21 April, would it?

PS: BillB Joined: Tue 12 Feb 2002 Member No.: 979

Didn't you say last time, when pointing out my posting habits in regards to the Falklands/Malvinas questions, that I probably hung around this forum starting a long time before you? Turns out to be the other way around.

LOL! Got me good there, mate! That will teach me to accept what other folk say in threads without checking...

Have a good one, and I almost forgot, Happy New Year chaps, and all the best for 2005.

Ref the nuclear weapons. It has been standard British policy to never confirm or deny or comment on nuclear weapons on board our war canoes. I don't see how this relates to your argument. It is a matter of operational security rather than honesty and truthfulness.

Ox, you have to take the charitable view. King Jester and his mates don't really have much to pick fault with, so they are obliged to make as much fuss as possible about total irrelevancies like the nuclear weapons thing, pedantic points about highly peripheral issues like Moody Brook or clinging deperately to things like the "cock-up" theory of military history to excuse poor performance. The deperate flailings of the beaten and marginalised, if you will...

If the RMs could not visually confirm the damage to the barracks in daylight, may be kelpers driving by on the right, yes the RIGHT side of the road, (against their selfdetermination right to drive on the wrong side of the road ) could have confirmed visually if the alledged attack and destruction of the barracks had taken place or not. I'm not sure if you can catch a whole lot of detail from the road, but kelpers had more than enough time to find out. Why not ask them? BTW, I think I still have a Joker up my sleeve in this game, regarding visual confirmation of the state of the barracks.

King Jester

OK following you again, sorry I was imagining RMs creeping round in the dark listening to Argentine officers with one hand cupped over their ears whilst rapidly thumbing through a Spanish phrase book.

The left is right and the right is wrong but two rights don't make a wrong they just make a car crash

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 05 January 2005 - 2229 PM

Jim Martin Posted

Is it just me, or is King Jester perhaps the only inhabitant of this board who really gives a damn about the Falklands Conflict anymore?

We already addressed my posting habits and the manner topics about the Falklands/Malvinas keep showing up on the first page of the thread. Anyhow, cause of the very fact that other "inhabitants" keep replying, your whole point seems to be disprooved.

On the first page of the thread we also clearly left politics out of the game. As you brought it up, do you care to explain the relevance of the fact that Argentina was at the time ruled by a Junta to the colonial status of the islands, the performance of the opposing forces during the war or the fact that a wide portion of the british press and literature keeps building on the Moody Brook myth?

Given the profound and insightfull nature of your first contribution, my humble sugestion is to keep the lid on the can of worms, and as you said:

Okay, you can go home now, nothing more for you to see here...

Your beloved TV sofa is the safer place...

BillB posted on Sat 11 Dec 2004 2301

.....I will have reviewed my position in light of new evidence or lines of opposing argument..... I have certainly done that with ref to Moody Brook, insofar as I am willing to accept that it was British bombs that did the damage if someone shows me verifiable evidence..... I do not, however, "flip" and chop and change merely to make things look good as you suggest.....If you give me some proper evidence to back up your argument that clearly supersedes my own, I am quite willing to take it on board. Unfortunately you cannot, or at least you could not last time.

OK, here I'm under the impression that its ME who has to proof through evidence that my point is correct, right?But then...

BillB posted Tue 4 Jan 2005 1124

Suffice to stay at this stage that the evidence I have examined clearly shows that your beloved myth exists largely in your own mind, given that the misconception has been pointed out in British published works since at least 1989, and was apparent with a bit of careful reading in earlier accounts....I'll get back and fully demolish your contention with proper references and so on later.

Now I'm really confused, wasn't that supposed to be my job? I mean, now YOU are going to proof to ME that the argie version about Moody Brook is correct? Or you are going to proof to me that the british knew about it before my own little genius pointed it out? You should use all that energy to enlighten your own people, cause I do certainly not need to be enlighted about this specific topic.

At least I got you reading and researching a bit. You probably stumbled across this on the process:

Wouldn't be the fact that Galtieri and Menendez had a conference there c.21 April, would it?

Close, very close. You are right on it. Keep searching.

Ox Posted

Ref the nuclear weapons. It has been standard British policy to never confirm or deny or comment on nuclear weapons on board our war canoes. I don't see how this relates to your argument. It is a matter of operational security rather than honesty and truthfulness.

I thought about editing it after posting, cause it probably would be missinterpreted. A badly choosen example to illustrate the point that brits will always trust a british version, i.e. Mayor Normans RMs testimonies vs. an argie version, i.e. Sanchez Sabarots Com Anfs testimonies. While on the other hand argies do the exact opposite. But the nuclear weapons issue comes in handy to previse other 'little secrets' the UK may have covered with a blanket. This one took 20 years to surface, others may follow.

On the first page of the thread we also clearly left politics out of the game. As you brought it up, do you care to explain the relevance of the fact that Argentina was at the time ruled by a Junta to the colonial status of the islands, the performance of the opposing forces during the war or the fact that a wide portion of the british press and literature keeps building on the Moody Brook myth?

King Jester

It's convenient for the Argentinian side to say that the politics of the war is beyond the realm of polite discourse. Admittedly politics has no bearing on the Moody Brook episode but it certainly has a bearing on the wider war. The fact that Argentna was at the time ruled by a thugocracy certainly stiffened the resolve of the British to throw the Argentinians out of the Falklands. I think you can make the argument as well that the internal politics of Argentinia had a bearing the the performance of the Argentinian army. When an army involves itself heavily in politics and has as one of its main tasks control of its own country's population fighting power can decline.

Also given the fact that this same military thugocracy felt it necessary to distract its population from its increasingly tenuous grasp on legitimacy, by invading the territory of a neighboring state to make itself popular with the irredentist hoi polloi of Argentina....

King Jester, you really are a tiresome individual. Just as I thought we were having an objective discussion like adults you revert to childish nonsense...

OK, here I'm under the impression that its ME who has to proof through evidence that my point is correct, right?But then...

But nothing. I haven't seen any verifiable proof form you at all, even though you constantly remind us how well you know the Argentine accounts etc etc ad nauseum.

Now I'm really confused, wasn't that supposed to be my job? I mean, now YOU are going to proof to ME that the argie version about Moody Brook is correct? Or you are going to proof to me that the british knew about it before my own little genius pointed it out?

Well, it may have been your job, but it is not one you have done f*ck all about in all this time, is it? See my comment above. I seriously doubt I am going to "proof" anything to you as your blinkers are too narrow and you are thus incapable of taking on board anything that does not fit your preconceived notion of what is "correct". However, what I am going to do is put together a properly referenced and academically valid examination of the matter, in order to silence your future whinings. I doubt you will like or agree with it, but it will be aimed at the open minded rather than yourself, and folk will be at liberty to draw their own conclusions. That said, I wish I could be so happy for half pointing out a piece of irrelevant trivia in an effort to make a redundant and misguided political point.

You should use all that energy to enlighten your own people, cause I do certainly not need to be enlighted about this specific topic.

Your need for enlightenment is a matter of opinion, but "my people" do need to be enlightened nearly as much as you and yours. They need to see how ludicrously naive and incompetent the Ca Cdo Anf "assault" on Moody Brook and Government House was, if only in order to stop the British giving them credit they do not deserve. Besides, enlightenment infers something that matters, and despite your obsessive harping on, the Moody Brook thing was and is utterly trivial and unimportant however you look at it.

At least I got you reading and researching a bit.

Only in the sense that my professional training makes my sphincter twitch at the sight of one sided nonsense dressed up as reasoned opinion. Plus I got tired of waiting for you to come up with some proper evidence, as opposed to unsupported assertions, half-truths and politically motivated nonsense.

I thought about editing it after posting, cause it probably would be missinterpreted. A badly choosen example to illustrate the point that brits will always trust a british version, i.e. Mayor Normans RMs testimonies vs. an argie version, i.e. Sanchez Sabarots Com Anfs testimonies. While on the other hand argies do the exact opposite. But the nuclear weapons issue comes in handy to previse other 'little secrets' the UK may have covered with a blanket. This one took 20 years to surface, others may follow.

I think you ought to get back into your pushchair, take your paranoia medication and put your tinfoil hat back on. This bit would be funny if it were not so pitiful, and it says a lot more about your close mindedness than that you seek to denigrate. If you were not so blinded by your own personal and national prejudices you would be able to that Norman and Sabarot's testimonies are complimentary rather than exclusive, because they *both* provide pieces of the picture. A post or so back you said something about seeing factual errors on British websites. Do tell me, KJ, how many times did you contact those websites with a polite explanation of what you saw as an error and with evidence to support it? If the answer is noe then you have no ground whatsoever to complain about the matter. Misconceptions, however trivial, do not get identified and rectified if those with the requisite knowledge merely sit back and do nothing, or restrict themselves to schoolboy sniping on boards where the matter is largely one of indifference...

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 06 January 2005 - 2154 PM

BillB wrote:

King Jester, you really are a tiresome individual. Just as I thought we were having an objective discussion like adults you revert to childish nonsense...

After your last two posts, it has become obvius that it is impossible to hold an adult debatte with you.

But nothing. I haven't seen any verifiable proof form you at all, even though you constantly remind us how well you know the Argentine accounts etc etc ad nauseum.

Stop bitching, will you!

A picture is worth a thousend words. And there is no need to argue about who saw , or heard, or assumed, or claimed whatever, as it is all clear black on white, for everybody to see. Moddy Brooks baracks WERE NOT "ferociously attacked with fragmentation grenades" as the popular belief in Britain is.

The men on the picture are Capt. Jandula, Capt. Figueroa, Mayor Catagneto and Lieut. Anadon, all of Ca Cdo 601, in front of Moddy Brook. The barracks are clearly in good shape, with no signs whatsoever of any violent attack. The picture was taken after the 10th of April and is one of the pictures of the book "Comandos en Accion" by Isidoro Moreno (EMECE Editors). If you follow the hyperlink, you will be able to get into the argie army virtual library, were this particular picture has been uploaded.

Besides, enlightenment infers something that matters, and despite your obsessive harping on, the Moody Brook thing was and is utterly trivial and unimportant however you look at it.

It would have become non-trivial and important if RMs were sleeping in their beds while being attacked with "deadly phosphorous grenades and MG fire", right? I insist, it is crucial to clear up what the orders of Cdo Anf were, and how they carried them out, to asses their performance. And clearing the myth is the key to that.

Only in the sense that my professional training makes my sphincter twitch at the sight of one sided nonsense dressed up as reasoned opinion. Plus I got tired of waiting for you to come up with some proper evidence, as opposed to unsupported assertions, half-truths and politically motivated nonsense.

LOL, I'm laughing so hard it hurts. Professional training? Just by reading this thread and the last one about the Falklands/Malvinas war, it has become absolutly evident that you flip, slash, cut and deny whatever part of your previous statements don't fit your current ones, becoming totally untraceable. Comon, you have screwed up the chance of scoring some points for home in several ocassions when I have left a wide undefended open flank. Don't try to steal points now, by jumping the gun and rushing to present us a "scholarworthy academic and unbiased" piece of research which proofs the exact same thing I stated at the begining of this topic and you (and others) denied.

and put your tinfoil hat back on

Back on?? That means I have to take it off every so often? You don't happen to have a spare instruction booklet left over, do you?

A post or so back you said something about seeing factual errors on British websites. Do tell me, KJ, how many times did you contact those websites with a polite explanation of what you saw as an error and with evidence to support it? If the answer is noe then you have no ground whatsoever to complain about the matter. Misconceptions, however trivial, do not get identified and rectified if those with the requisite knowledge merely sit back and do nothing, or restrict themselves to schoolboy sniping on boards where the matter is largely one of indifference...

You gotta get started somewhere, don't you? I figured I could clear things up for those posters who still believe the myth first, and then move on to contact the RAF with a "polite explanation". I'm just preoccupied I could run into a stubborn apologist like you are, and end up on the UKs government black list. Are you still angry at yourself for buying into the Mythbusters hoax?

pi wrote:

It's convenient for the Argentinian side to say that the politics of the war is beyond the realm of polite discourse.

Appart from being a practical approach to keep the flaming level low, excluding politics and keeping the Pandora box closed is equally convenient for the brit side. These folks don't like to be remainded that they are not a colonial empire any longer.

Admittedly politics has no bearing on the Moody Brook episode

I fully agree, that is why the topic was brought up again in the general military topics forum.

but it certainly has a bearing on the wider war. The fact that Argentna was at the time ruled by a thugocracy certainly stiffened the resolve of the British to throw the Argentinians out of the Falklands.

Thugocracy, clever word. Actually had to look it up to check if it really has a greek root Anyhow, thugocracies can come about by different ways, usurpation of empty power space (revolutions, coups, etc.), inheritance (monarchies and aristrocacies) or open elections for that matter. Also many posible combinations of said processes can lead to a thugocracy. As a related example just check the composition of the US senat...

Now to your statement...are you suggesting that the UK would have indulged a military invasion of one of its colonies by a democratically lead Argentina? I know that the UK was seriuosly thinking about handing over the islands some time in the future anyway, if not for the war. But do you really think the UK would have done a smaller or less stiff military effort if for example Spain decided to run over Gibraltar?? You must be joking...Or did I read you wrong, and what you imply is that Maggy felt a need to play Globo-Cop and teach those naughty argie dictators a lesson? I wonder by she would have woven a secret alliance with chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, for which she has publicly expressed the UKs gratitude, in order to help her do so?

I think you can make the argument as well that the internal politics of Argentinia had a bearing the the performance of the Argentinian army. When an army involves itself heavily in politics and has as one of its main tasks control of its own country's population fighting power can decline.

You may have point there. But the fact that Argentinas armed forces had not fought an external war in a 100 years, nor did they have any expirience in tri-dimensional, combined forces fighting, is likely to be the MAIN reason for their rather modest performance. Getting involved in politics, and administering the country, surely did little for ameliorate that situation, but if I have to put a number to it, it may have taken at the most 10% of all "resources" (men, time, money, PR, effort). There seems to be a misconception about the number of "uniforms" on administrative positions and public life in general during the last Junta time. Other than the three Junta members, and may be two dozen high ranking generalls and admirals, the government was at large run by the same civil agents and state employees who had done it before. Ambassadors still were appointed from the diplomatic body, for the health secretary still a doctor was appointed, etc etc. We did not have a soldier with a gun behind each public office desk, if that is your impression. And other than "normal" war time troop movements across the country during the Falklands/Malvinas war, I'm not aware of a particularly reinforced or stronger military control of the population. As I already posted some time ago, we had, and still have, riot control police for those tasks.

Yawn. More carefully selected, self-serving distortions. It is becoming increasingly apparent that your aim is not to establish what happened at Moody Brook and why it has been sometimes perceived differently, but to have the Argentine version of any and all events accepted over any other, irrespective of its accuracy or veracity. I assume this is in a pitiful, straw grasping attempt to deflect attention form the inescapable reality that your then military dictatorship's miscalculations led to Argentina receiving one of the 20th Century's most comprehensive military defeats. Pathetic really, I think your war dead deserve a bit better memorial...

Stop bitching, will you!

A picture is worth a thousend words. And there is no need to argue about who saw , or heard, or assumed, or claimed whatever, as it is all clear black on white, for everybody to see. Moddy Brooks baracks WERE NOT "ferociously attacked with fragmentation grenades" as the popular belief in Britain is.

LOL, I suppose you believe that nonsense about "the camera never lies" too, KJ. With all due respect, this picture proves nothing of the kind, as there could still be extensive damage within or on the other side of the buildings shown. However, the point at issue is no longer whether or not the barracks were "ferociously attacked". You are deliberately erecting a straw man argument because as I have already pointed out, this fallacy has been covered in British published works for at least sixteen years. Oh, and the British accounts you refer to actually mentions "phosphorous grenades", as do you below. If you are going to bandy things about do try and be accurate.

The point at issue now is your repeated assertion that for some unstated reason the British have deliberately created and propagated a false version of events, in which you have directly accused at least one British servicemen (Major Norman) of lying. This is patently untrue, it is provably untrue, and I intend to present evidence to refute your nonsensical accusations once and for all.

It would have become non-trivial and important if RMs were sleeping in their beds while being attacked with "deadly phosphorous grenades and MG fire", right?

Given the naive and incompetent thinking that lay behind the planning for the "assault" on Moody Brook and Government House, I assume this is what Sabarots and Giachino were expecting. They were lucky that Rex Hunt was a less warlike individual or I suspect there is a good chance that more of the Ca Cdo Anf would still be resting their bones in the Falklands.

I insist, it is crucial to clear up what the orders of Cdo Anf were, and how they carried them out, to assess their performance. And clearing the myth is the key to that.

Indeed. So how about a referenced translation of Sabarot's orders, so we can see what he was actually ordered to do? As for the performance bit, there is enough evidence available to do that already, altho you are not going to like it. And for the umpteenth time, there is no "myth" excpet in your fevered imagination. The fact that a couple of British websites cite the fallacy proves nothing except the site owners have not done their research properly. I have seen websites claiming just about everything, from alien abduction to Elvis spotting. It doesn't make them true either.

LOL, I'm laughing so hard it hurts. Professional training? Just by reading this thread and the last one about the Falklands/Malvinas war, it has become absolutly evident that you flip, slash, cut and deny whatever part of your previous statements don't fit your current ones, becoming totally untraceable.

Yes, I hear laughter and self-inflicted pain are good ways of distracting the mind from unpalatable things. Evident to you, perhaps but I think if we held a poll the vote would go to this applying to you rather than I. I don't like blowing my own trumpet, but I have an honours degree and a PhD in history from two front rank British universities, I teach part-time at one, and have had several pieces and two books published with a third on the way. Your qualifications to belittle my training are what, precisely? Ref the last bit, how pathetic. I had a position, and I reassessed and changed it in light of additional evidence. Not to do so would have been ridiculous. Unlike you, apparently, I am not arrogant enough to think my position is the absolute and final word on anything.

Comon, you have screwed up the chance of scoring some points for home in several ocassions when I have left a wide undefended open flank. Don't try to steal points now, by jumping the gun and rushing to present us a "scholarworthy academic and unbiased" piece of research which proofs the exact same thing I stated at the begining of this topic and you (and others) denied.

Scoring points says it all about your approach and mindset I think, KJ. I'm more interested in finding out what happened and why it happened, no matter how personally unpalatable the results might turn out to be. And "stated" is the key point there, as you have not provided a shred of verifiable evidence until today's photograph to support your statement(s). I don't know how they do things in Argentina, but unsupported assertion is not considered worth anything where I come from, no matter how loudly or frequently shouted. Is it a South American cultural thing, perhaps? Or just you?

I am unaware of a single post in support of any of your rantings on any of these threads, apart from my recent acknowledgement of your point about Moody Brook. Have you stopped to consider why that might be, apart from the entire world being anti-Argentine, of course. I am beginning to wonder if you are suffering from schizophrenia or something similar. You started by ranting about some imaginary conspiracy myth, and then attack me for saying there is actually evidence to support your view even though you made no effort to provide any yourself. Rather strange behaviour to say the least. But then bigotry, closed mindedness and a desperate need to avoid acknowledging reality can do strange things to a psyche....

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 09 January 2005 - 2241 PM

BillB wrote: [QUOTE] It is becoming increasingly apparent that your aim is not to establish what happened at Moody Brook and why it has been sometimes perceived differently, but to have the Argentine version of any and all events accepted over any other, irrespective of its accuracy or veracity. [/QUOTE]

Perceived differently??? LOL, that is the punchline for a good joke.Ref the second bit, read one of my replies to OX, when he asked about myths in Argentina (stoned gurkhas, i.e.). I think I made it clear that I want to move people to read and find out the truth all alone by themselves.

[QUOTE] I assume this is in a pitiful, straw grasping attempt to deflect attention form the inescapable reality that your then military dictatorship's miscalculations led to Argentina receiving one of the 20th Century's most comprehensive military defeats. [/QUOTE]

I'm not going to enter your "assumption" game. And I'm not going to divert form the Moody Brook topic either. Feel free to start a new thread on the "biggest misscalculation which lead to the most comprehensive defeat". I will grap my copies of Woodward, Moore and the sort, and share my views with the forum any time.

Pathetic it is that you try to play the emotional card, after you seized Jim Martins comment "about the insignificant islands" as a chance to bash on me and ridicule said war dead, in the process trampling on your own fellow countrymen who also died by the hundreds to recover those insignificant islands. Our (I mean our, yours and mine) servicemen, enlisted or drafted, are best honored by getting the thruth out. I won't dig your pseudo-emotional appeals, don't waste your time.

[QUOTE] LOL, I suppose you believe that nonsense about "the camera never lies" too, KJ. With all due respect, this picture proves nothing of the kind, as there could still be extensive damage within or on the other side of the buildings shown. [/QUOTE]

Sure, it also could be a mock-up build on the same Hollywood set where the fake Apollo moon landing was filmed. If this is your reaction afetr you already know what the real events were, I can't even imagine what you would have said a month ago if I posted the picture then.

[QUOTE] However, the point at issue is no longer whether or not the barracks were "ferociously attacked". You are deliberately erecting a straw man argument because as I have already pointed out, this fallacy has been covered in British published works for at least sixteen years. Oh, and the British accounts you refer to actually mentions "phosphorous grenades", as do you below. If you are going to bandy things about do try and be accurate. [/QUOTE]

Since when the point at issue is no longer if the barracks were ferociously attacked or not? When did yu decide to change the topic of discussion? Oh, wait a minute, you decided it from the very begining, when you started attacking me and pretending you could infere what my motives are. Since you decided to "steal" the credit for finding out that the fallacy is already covered by part of the british literature on the subject, which is precisely the fact you had no idea less than a month ago and only stumbled upon because I drove you to it by raising the issue in the first place? BTW, I provided a link on my very firts post to a serious and well researched british websource, where the Moody Brook episode is portrayed correctly. I already knew back then, as I still do now, that a part of the british literature portrays the correct account of the events. Its the early works containing the fallacy, which have been repeated over and over again, shaping the british public opinion on this. Its a fact that at least two british posters on this very forum have brought up the "myth" and even yourself were rather inclined to believe the myth, till you found out better.

Ref the bit about the "grenades", before you go about accusing me of distorting things, read the following:

[QUOTE] Around 0610 hrs the first firing was heard as the Buzo Tactico attacked the barracks at Moody Brook. The attack was ferocious, combining submachine guns with fragmentation and phosphorous grenades, hoping to catch the Marines in bed, showing that later claims of attempts to spare British lives were completely false. If the barracks had not been already deserted, many men would likely have died. With the buildings at Moody Brook ablaze, the Argentine troops moved on toward Stanley. [/QUOTE]Source: http://www.raf.mod.u...lands/inv1.html

So, its both, frag and WP. And the barracks where allegedly left on fire!!!. Aside from confusing Buzo Tactico and Cdo Anf, I think this summarizes the myth very well.

[QUOTE] The point at issue now is your repeated assertion that for some unstated reason the British have deliberately created and propagated a false version of events, in which you have directly accused at least one British servicemen (Major Norman) of lying. This is patently untrue, it is provably untrue, and I intend to present evidence to refute your nonsensical accusations once and for all. [/QUOTE]

You are completly dilutional. I have NEVER accused Norman or his men of lying. Read my last two replies. I merely said that they infered wrongly, and claimed that there was an attack, which they could not confirm. Happy postwar publishers then created the myth, IRCC, were my exact words. I have NEVER said either, that the UK delibaratly spun a scheme about Moody Brook, altought the above websource seems to suggest it, and merely questioned what other secrets, apart from the nuclear depthcharges issue, may surface in the future.

[QUOTE] So how about a referenced translation of Sabarot's orders, so we can see what he was actually ordered to do? [/QUOTE]

You have already quoted Sabarots, and unless you are now implying that his testimony is false or untrue, the point about what orders he was given is already cleared.

[QUOTE] And for the umpteenth time, there is no "myth" excpet in your fevered imagination. The fact that a couple of British websites cite the fallacy proves nothing except the site owners have not done their research properly. I have seen websites claiming just about everything, from alien abduction to Elvis spotting. It doesn't make them true either. [/QUOTE]

Last time I checked, raf stands for Royal Air Force, mod stands for Ministry (Mistery?) of Defense, and uk stands for United Kingdom. And I double checked, the Falklands History page is actually a part of the offical RAF site.. No obscure dot.com, as you suggested. And it was last updated October 1st, 2004. Pretty old info those guys still handle, right? BTW, I had already provided this link in my very first post, just to prove how widespread the myth is. A myth, I repeat, you were inclined to believe less than a month ago. Last time you prompted me to take action against those ill-informed website owners. Being yourself a british taxpayer, assuming you pay your taxes and do not live in Andorra, YOU should take action against the RAF website, cause they are wasting your citizens money on a 16 years superseeded and fairly crappy history consulting service....

[QUOTE] I don't like blowing my own trumpet, but I have an honours degree and a PhD in history from two front rank British universities, I teach part-time at one, and have had several pieces and two books published with a third on the way. Your qualifications to belittle my training are what, precisely? Ref the last bit, how pathetic. I had a position, and I reassessed and changed it in light of additional evidence. Not to do so would have been ridiculous. Unlike you, apparently, I am not arrogant enough to think my position is the absolute and final word on anything. [/QUOTE]

I will give you three reasons why your degree in history bears no meaning whatsoever in the context we are discussing. In fact I could give a rats a..., sorry, a rats tail if you were to complement your history degree with an indoor plumber license as well. 1) Your history degree is totally irrelevant, because here at the forum you are not a collection of framed papers on your office wall, you are simply BillB, Member Number 979 of Tank Net. Here, my friend, you are judged by what you post, and your posts are taken apart for consistency, accuracy and sense, regardless of what you may or may not have accomplished in life or what your credentials may be. 2) I don't know on what history period your area of expertise is, nor if you are actually renown or recognized for it. I won't question it either. But your history degree still is irrelevant to this topic, because you have shown through your posts, by posting numerous mistakes or missconceptions (see numbers of artillery, see number of troops on Goose Green, see number of argie casualties on said battle, and not lastly the Moody Brook episode also...) which have been pointed out not by myself alone, but also by other posters, that the Falklands/Malvinas war is NOT your area of expertise. You have admitted so yourself, BTW, along this present thread. Moreover, you have also shown some basic lack of knowledge of british history (see Utrecht treaty validity, see precise circumstances of failed british invasion of Buenos Aires, see precise circumstances of american warship raid and how it relates to the british seizure of the Falklands, see UN decolonization comitte resolution and status, see precise legal status of islands and kelpers in brit law, etc etc). Strikes me as broad gaps. I'm not making a judgement of your professional credentials, I'm simply pointing out what I have read in your posts.3) Your degree in history is furthermore irrelevant to this discussion, because you have jumped in "with both feet" in your own words, to deride me and my credibility, instead of approaching the issue according to the researchers precautionary principle. You entered the debatte having a position, for which YOU had not enough evidence, despite ranting about MY lack of evidence, or the alledged lack of evidence of spanish (argie) published works or accounts of the war. It strikes me as odd that you draw the "serious researcher" card but have n-times made assumptions or infered about my personal or political motivation. After finally having found out better, which you selfindulgingly call "reassesing" said position, you have failed to openly admitt your previous ignorance on the subject.

[QUOTE] Scoring points says it all about your approach and mindset I think, KJ. I'm more interested in finding out what happened and why it happened, no matter how personally unpalatable the results might turn out to be. And "stated" is the key point there, as you have not provided a shred of verifiable evidence until today's photograph to support your statement(s). [/QUOTE]

Three reason why I took my time to post the picture:1) I was creating suspense, sort of the same expectation you are trying to create with your loudly announced "cornerstone" of historical research.2) I was allowing you and others time to read, research and elaborate.3) I do not need to present any evidence, because the argie version is correct, and brit literature has already acknowledged so. I only needed you to make your homework. I hope, and it would make me happy, if other posters are doing just the same.

As for me, I think I'm done clarifying the myth, and I expect that I will not be presented with the fallacious account of the alledged argie attack on Moody Brook again by posters of this forum.As for you, if you have caught enough mommentum to gather information and put together a comprehensive account of all the events which took place on Stanley that 2nd April 1982, I can only congratulate you, and offer my help, if you care to accept it.

King Jester

Edit: Don't know what the format tags are doing, they seem to have a spirit of their own today. Quote simply doesn't work at all.

[quote name='King Jester' date='Mon 10 Jan 2005 0341']Perceived differently??? LOL, that is the punchline for a good joke.[/quote]

In your fevered mind perhaps. Whereas you seem to think that establishing the "truth" about Moody Brook is a Holy Grail of some kind, I and Isuspect the majority of onlookers see it as a minor point attached to an unimportant side issue. That meets the criteria of differing perceptions I believe, at least where I come from. Perhaps the Junta re-educated your side differently, or it is merely you. Don’t know and I don’t really care.

[quote]Ref the second bit, read one of my replies to OX, when he asked about myths in Argentina (stoned gurkhas, i.e.). I think I made it clear that I want to move people to read and find out the truth all alone by themselves.[/quote]

So why haven't you been recommending where folk can read evidence to refute the myth perpetrated by Con with his ludicrous untruths, which are far more glaring than Moody Brook. But we know why, don't we KJ. It's because Con’s account supports the Argentine position, and your sole intent is to try and cast the British in a bad light and propagate the truth according to King Jester. Contemptible.

[quote]I'm not going to enter your "assumption" game. [/quote]

No, I didn't think you would, it would risk you having to acknowledge something outside your biased and carefully tailored construct.

[quote]And I'm not going to divert form the Moody Brook topic either. Feel free to start a new thread on the "biggest misscalculation which lead to the most comprehensive defeat". I will grap my copies of Woodward, Moore and the sort, and share my views with the forum any time.[/quote]

You tiresome and eccentric views are already clear. Instead of "grapping" Moore et al, how about going for some less subjective British published sources? Or better still, how about posting up some verifiable new material translated from those great Argentine sources you are always bragging about knowing so much about.

[quote]Pathetic it is that you try to play the emotional card, after you seized Jim Martins comment "about the insignificant islands" as a chance to bash on me and ridicule said war dead, in the process trampling on your own fellow countrymen who also died by the hundreds to recover those insignificant islands. Our (I mean our, yours and mine) servicemen, enlisted or drafted, are best honored by getting the thruth out. I won't dig your pseudo-emotional appeals, don't waste your time.[/quote]

Touch a nerve, did I? The idea that getting the "truth" out about Moody Brook matters in any way is so ridiculous it would be funny if it were not so pitiful. I won't even bother to ask where you got the trampling bit as it is so ludicrous. The 252 British war dead died doing the job they signed up voluntarily to do, protecting British citizens and sovereign territory from foreign military aggression. They are remembered by those who were there, those who knew them and by the nation at the 11 November Remembrance ceremonies.

On the other hand we have 655 Argentine war dead, almost all conscripts, some of whom were almost literally dragged out of the classroom. These unfortunates were despatched by a military dictatorship to support an act of unprovoked military aggression, and paid the ultimate price. How best to remember them? Acknowledge that they were used and abused by those they had a right to expect better from, perhaps. Or maybe highlight their sacrifice by acknowledging the disgusting way those who survived were treated by their countrymen who had stayed at home to wave flags and chant while better men were fighting and dying, perhaps. No, far better to pick on an obscure topic that had and has no bearing at all on anything remotely relevant, make a mountain out of nothing and dress it up in a load of self-righteous bullsh*t about seeking truth and justice. Like I said, pathetic.

[quote]Sure, it also could be a mock-up build on the same Hollywood set where the fake Apollo moon landing was filmed. If this is your reaction afetr you already know what the real events were, I can't even imagine what you would have said a month ago if I posted the picture then.[/quote]

Ah yes, mocking what you cannot refute, default position of those who cannot bear to have their opinions challenged. I would have said "thanks, I haven't seen that before. Is that it?". And then I'd have made the same points. Can you see inside the buildings from the pic? No. Can you see the other side of the buildings from the pic? No. Once again you are expecting folk to accept what you say merely on the grounds that you are saying it. No sale, I’m afraid.

[quote]Since when the point at issue is no longer if the barracks were ferociously attacked or not? When did yu decide to change the topic of discussion?[/quote]

At about the time I pointed out to you that you were flogging a dead horse because your incredibly important and shocking new revelation had been published in the public domain for 16 years, I should have thought. Ref the rest, I dunno how you do things in Argentina, but everywhere else discussions tend to move on and develop. You, however, seem to think a discussion consists of you jumping up and down doing a Nelson Muntz by screaming over and over "Ha ha! I found a minor error! Ha ha!" while everyone else sits mute and agrees with your brilliance and wit. That is called a one-sided harangue or verbal masturbation where I come from, btw, but don’t let that stop your puerile fun...

[quote]Oh, wait a minute, you decided it from the very begining, when you started attacking me and pretending you could infere what my motives are. Since you decided to "steal" the credit for finding out that the fallacy is already covered by part of the british literature on the subject, which is precisely the fact you had no idea less than a month ago and only stumbled upon because I drove you to it by raising the issue in the first place? BTW, I provided a link on my very firts post to a serious and well researched british websource, where the Moody Brook episode is portrayed correctly. I already knew back then, as I still do now, that a part of the british literature portrays the correct account of the events. Its the early works containing the fallacy, which have been repeated over and over again, shaping the british public opinion on this. Its a fact that at least two british posters on this very forum have brought up the "myth" and even yourself were rather inclined to believe the myth, till you found out better.[/quote]

My my, you are excitable. I made an off the cuff comment without bothering to check and you seem to think that somehow fixes me irrevocably and removes my right or ability to review my position or change my mind. You ought to know that inflexibility is a handicap rather then an advantage in open discussion. I’ve prolly got some old letters to Father Christmas from when I was a kid. According to your warped logic that means I am condemned to believe in Father Christmas for ever. Grow up, for goodness sake, you sound like a five-year-old.

Whichever, this begs the question "why did you bother to waste your time then? I hope you feel better for getting all that off your chest, so now you can wipe the spittle from your chin and get your breath back. And please, don't flatter yourself that you drove me to anything. I was merely curious to see if there was any actual substance in your tiresome ramblings, and it took me about five minutes to find that there was and I’d remembered something that was not in fact accurate. Big deal.

You are right on one point though. British perceptions may well have been partly shaped by Moody Brook, but only because Ca Cdo Anf had no business being there, any more than they did sneaking about at the back of Government House. It is their presence there that counts, irrespective of what they did or did not do, because that presence amounted to unprovoked military aggression. That's it, nothing more to be said. You can carry on yapping about myths and untruths until the cows come home, but that will not change this underlying truth one iota, and that is the only one that matters.

[quote]You are completly dilutional.[/quote]

I think the word you are unsuccessfully grasping for there is delusional. Something you seem to be more closely acquainted with than me...

[quote]I have NEVER accused Norman or his men of lying. Read my last two replies. I merely said that they infered wrongly, and claimed that there was an attack, which they could not confirm. Happy postwar publishers then created the myth, IRCC, were my exact words. I have NEVER said either, that the UK delibaratly spun a scheme about Moody Brook, altought the above websource seems to suggest it, and merely questioned what other secrets, apart from the nuclear depthcharges issue, may surface in the future.[/quote]

I see. I must have totally misconstrued your tone through this entire tiresome thread, then. It also begs the question of what torturously arcane point you are attempting to make, then. Make your mind up, you cannot have it both ways because these positions are mutually exclusive.

[quote]You have already quoted Sabarots, and unless you are now implying that his testimony is false or untrue, the point about what orders he was given is already cleared.[/quote]

Well this is the basic divergence between our approaches, you see. You find a fragment of evidence that supports your preconceived ideas, and immediately suspend it in amber. I find a fragment of evidence and I want to see the proof that it is accurate, how it fits into the overall picture, and the answers to whatever new questions it throws up as well. I can then not avoid accepting it, even if it overturns my existing understanding of the matter, and however personally unpalatable I might find it. I suppose that is the difference between an educated professional and someone with a political axe to grind…

I have not actually seen Sabarots’ testimony, I have seen a small unreferenced paragraph allegedly taken from it, and a couple of unreferenced mentions referring to it, and that is all. On that basis I cannot in all honesty come to a verdict on whether his testimony is false or not. Not because I do not believe him as he is Argentine, but because his testimony raises more questions than it answers. Assuming the Argentine military bother with such things I would need to see exactly what Busser ordered him to do, and the briefing he gave his men. I would also need to see a full account of his actions at Moody Brook, and preferably with some testimony from his men too.

In fact I would really like to see that, because I would love to know why he thought his "plan" for Moody Brook and Government House had any prospect of success had he encountered even the lightest of opposition. This is actually the important point with ref to this "myth" you keep banging on about IMO. The simple fact is that British writers assumed that Sabarots cleared Moody Brook with grenades and white phosphorous because they would not have considered anything less as acceptable. For a force with pretensions of being Special Forces, Co Cdo Anf's planning, assumptions and performance were laughably amateurish. They were extremely fortunate that Naval Party 8901 were under control of Rex Hunt. You should therefore consider the myth a compliment.

[quote]Last time you prompted me to take action against those ill-informed website owners. Being yourself a british taxpayer, assuming you pay your taxes and do not live in Andorra, YOU should take action against the RAF website, cause they are wasting your citizens money on a 16 years superseeded and fairly crappy history consulting service....[/quote]

But you see I don't care, KJ, because it is irrelevant. It really does not matter except in a very abstract way, as a matter of pure curiosity. There are a lot more glaring historical errors that appear far more frequently than your obsession that need to be addressed first. You care, you raise it. I just think your obsession and pretensions are laughable, quite frankly.

[quote]I will give you three reasons why your degree in history bears no meaning whatsoever in the context we are discussing. In fact I could give a rats a..., sorry, a rats tail if you were to complement your history degree with an indoor plumber license as well....snip[/quote]

That's "degrees", not degree. I'll take this long winded rant, which boils down to the standard defence "we are all equal on the net" beloved of the terminally clueless, as a no, you have no basis to challenge my professional qualifications. Actually, my area of expertise is British military history in the 19 and 20 Centuries, which is very relevant. Admit it, you objection is not about my qualifications and training, but about my not endorsing your biased version of events. Oh, and your ref to plumbers is also ill chosen, as I hold a City and Guilds Craft and Advanced Craft qualification in brickwork, having served a full apprenticeship in my youth. That aside, like many you miss the fact that education is about more than the specific area of study, it is just as much about maintaining objectivity and critical thinking, something that is glaringly absent from everything you have said on this topic. You have your position and you will not even contemplate acknowledging anything that might challenge that position in even the tiniest way. A bit sad really, but your loss.

[quote]Three reason why I took my time to post the picture:1) I was creating suspense, sort of the same expectation you are trying to create with your loudly announced "cornerstone" of historical research.2) I was allowing you and others time to read, research and elaborate.3) I do not need to present any evidence, because the argie version is correct, and brit literature has already acknowledged so. I only needed you to make your homework. I hope, and it would make me happy, if other posters are doing just the same.[/quote]

But KJ, to create suspense you have to have something folk are interested in. All you have is a subject of such irrelevance and unimportance that it is a matter of utter indifference to everybody but you. As I've already pointed out, the picture means nothing in itself, altho you can continue to believe otherwise if you wish.

[quote]As for you, if you have caught enough mommentum to gather information and put together a comprehensive account of all the events which took place on Stanley that 2nd April 1982, I can only congratulate you, and offer my help, if you care to accept it.[/quote]

Hardly a matter of momentum – as I said above, it took all of five minutes to establish something that has been in the public domain for sixteen years. I'm sorry, but I couldn't and wouldn't accept any help from you in that direction after your performance on this thread, not least your biased, self-serving rants in this post. Frankly, I have zero confidence in your ability to provide unsullied material untainted by your political stance on this matter, and accepting your help in this light would compromise my professional objectivity and integrity. Besides, there is no need for a comprehensive account because the existing accounts already provide one. The bit above about you not having to present any evidence because the Argentine version is correct says it all for me, I'm afraid, as it illustrates your overall attitude perfectly.

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 11 January 2005 - 2338 PM

BillB wrote

Tue 11 Jan 2005 0024The idea that getting the "truth" out about Moody Brook matters in any way is so ridiculous it would be funny if it were not so pitiful. Posted Fri 7 Jan 2005 0755 I'm more interested in finding out what happened and why it happened, no matter how personally unpalatable the results might turn out to be.

That is called a one-sided harangue or verbal masturbation where I come from, btw, but don’t let that stop your puerile fun...

Have you realized that this thread is about 5 pages of your unending gibberish and onesided attempts to deride my personna, assumptions over assumptions over assumptions about my alledged agenda and unsubstantiated opinions about my standarts and credibility? Of course opinions are opinions, you have one, I have one, just like arses, everybody has one.

I must have totally misconstrued your tone through this entire tiresome thread, then. It also begs the question of what torturously arcane point you are attempting to make, then. Make your mind up, you cannot have it both ways because these positions are mutually exclusive.

Read CAREFULLY my Mythbuster hoax post. The absolutely cristal clear point I intended to make is spelled out there with every i dotted and every t crossed, for you to read. I could make a little crayon drawing, in case you need further clarification. BTW, I'm done with my point: the myth existed and exists, despite having been identified as totally fallacious by most part of the british literature, it is still very widespread and accepted. Nuff said.

That's "degrees", not degree. I'll take this long winded rant, which boils down to the standard defence "we are all equal on the net" beloved of the terminally clueless, as a no, you have no basis to challenge my professional qualifications. Actually, my area of expertise is British military history in the 19 and 20 Centuries, which is very relevant. Admit it, you objection is not about my qualifications and training, but about my not endorsing your biased version of events. Oh, and your ref to plumbers is also ill chosen, as I hold a City and Guilds Craft and Advanced Craft qualification in brickwork, having served a full apprenticeship in my youth. That aside, like many you miss the fact that education is about more than the specific area of study, it is just as much about maintaining objectivity and critical thinking, something that is glaringly absent from everything you have said on this topic. You have your position and you will not even contemplate acknowledging anything that might challenge that position in even the tiniest way. A bit sad really, but your loss.

Sorry about the plumbers license comment, I meant no offense. I could have chosen any wildly unrelated skill, such as greyhound trainer, harf player or odontologist. Just a coincidence I picked a manual craft. In fact I have high respect for skilled brick and mortar workers (had to do it myself for a while) and an aesthetic appreciation for english brick and mortar 19th Century construction style.

As for your "degrees", you asked quite rudly what my qualifications were, and I politely ignored your question, giving you three objective reasons why your infatous PhD ego is irrelevant to this discussion, on this forum. I will again explain those three reasons:1) Dig it, we are "all born equal on the net", if you like it or not. Unless of course you provide us with a peer reviewed summary of your latest work, or the written critic of your last grant proposal draft by the head of your department, or a copy of the rationalle for your teaching appointment by the deans at your university. Even one of those student teaching evaluations you get at the end of each term would be acceptable. You see, the question is not if you have your PhD, I'm sure you have it. The question is, are you any good at it? BTW, how come do you have so much time to spend on a privately owned webforum populated mostly by non-formally educated amateur historians, anyway? Is it some kind of weird fetish about talking down to the uneducated and brag about your qualifications, or do you get the facts for your research here?2) I'm sorry, but I have already caught you on to many little mistakes about the Falklands/Malvinas war as to accept your expertise on it as granted.

I made an off the cuff comment without bothering to check ........it took me about five minutes to find that there was and I’d remembered something that was not in fact accurate. Big deal.

You should consider doing a whole lot of reading to brush up your facts.3) As for the objectivity and academic rigour your training has embodied you with, it all went down the toilet when you posted following comment:

Posted Fri 10 Dec 2004 2314 He ( King Jester) hasn't put up the comment to advertise a "show meant for entertainment" but to support a political point he argued unsuccessfully last time he raised this subject, as he does with monotonous regularity and with no acknowledgement of logic, argument, evidence or any perspective except his own. Which is why I went in with both feet this time at the outset.

Already been there, right? Assumptions, over assumptions, over assumptions. You approached the question about the myth by questioning my alledged motive, so you turned an objective factual question into a subjective personal discussion. Hardly the way of doing science. You would be better served with some coursework in mindreading, a summer semester in ouija board and a graduate class in adivination, if you approach every factual question this same way.

I encourage you to read my Mythbuster hoax dialogue again. There you will find, if there is any criticall thinking, scientific method and precautonary principle left on your self-idolizing I-have-a-degree-I-m-so-much-superior mindset, that I properly exposed the subject following scientific criteria. Of course my taste for picking the Mythbusters show may be questionable, but nevertheless I collected some support on that too.

Hardly a matter of momentum – as I said above, it took all of five minutes to establish something that has been in the public domain for sixteen years.

And you, with all your inflated PhD ego, were totally ignorant of.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't and wouldn't accept any help from you in that direction after your performance on this thread, not least your biased, self-serving rants in this post. Frankly, I have zero confidence in your ability to provide unsullied material untainted by your political stance on this matter, and accepting your help in this light would compromise my professional objectivity and integrity.

You are so blindly obsessed about owning the thrut, or better put, sorting what thrut is worth being told and which don't, that you aren't even aware of how predictable you have become. So far I only have missed once on what you would say next. The only time I missed was when you actually replied kindly to my new years greeting. I must confess, I expected otherwise. This time I could have written down your exact words without reading them. One could say that I pulled you by the nose to "burn the bridges". Sad, as I still think it could have worked out.

The bit above about you not having to present any evidence because the Argentine version is correct says it all for me, I'm afraid, as it illustrates your overall attitude perfectly.

Do I have to provide proof that the Earth circles around the Sun? In your own words: it took all of five minutes to establish something that has been in the public domain for sixteen years. I don't need to provide any further proof, its already done.

King Jester

PS:

So why haven't you been recommending where folk can read evidence to refute the myth perpetrated by Con with his ludicrous untruths, which are far more glaring than Moody Brook. But we know why, don't we KJ. It's because Con’s account supports the Argentine position

I would be so much more at ease if I knew WTF you talk about. Who or what is "Con"? Care to explain?

This tiresome thread has gone on for so many pages and I have to make assumptions because I am still trying to understand exactly what you are getting at. That could have been avoided if you had refrained from turning the thing into an ill mannered argument and just addressed the reasonable points I asked. That aside, we established that your premise that a myth had been perpetrated was inaccurrate a long way back, even though you have subtly shifted your position by acknowledging that this was done a long time ago in British sources. Something you did not do initially.

Yes, you have made the point that some sources have inaccurate accounts of Moody Brook. But I'd like you to explain your underlying thinking as to exactly why this matters and what it proves. If you cannot do that then your making the point is not worth much.

Ref my spending so much time on the forum and my work. None of your business, but for the record. I choose to spend a good portion of my *leisure* time at TankNet for fun, because it is a fascinating place, and a mine of information where I have learned a great deal. In addition, I have to spend a great deal of time at home because my legs were damaged in an accident a few years back and I am frequently unable to walk or even stand. Hence my shift away from bricklaying. I do nonetheless manage to teach part time in a university and numerous colleges and schools, and I assume I am doing something right or I would not have been invited to return to three separate jobs for the last eight years or so and again this year. I have also received very good feedback in the anonymous feedback forms we give students year on year, which is what counts to me. Just for the record.

With ref to the bit about us all being equal on the net. A person with no or limited knowledge on a subject is still exactly that when ranged against someone with greater knowledge or even greater critical thinking skills, just as they would be in any other environment. To think otherwise is deluded, and I would point to TankNet as proof.

Finally, with ref to "Con", that is the the book called "Boys of the War" or something similar in Spanish by Daniel Con, I believe? The one that makes the claims about doped up Gurkhas. I shall be contacting the Mythbusters team for a programme to refute the myth that Gurkhas made any major attacks on fixed Argentine opositions during the Falklands Conflict, and that they were supplied with marijuana and Sony Walkmans by the UK Ministry of Defence to make them easier to use as cannon-fodder becasue that is a genuine myth based on a total untruth.

I look forward to seeing your underlying rationale for raising this subject, and I do hope you have the courtesy to provide one.

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 13 January 2005 - 2348 PM

BillB, I'm saddened to learn about your accident, but glad to hear you have coped with it and found yourself a new and challenging occupation where you can contribute your part to society and which allows you to sustain yourself economically. According to you, you have in addition succeded and earned the recognition of students and peers. I will take your word for it, but will not hesitate to ask for verifiable proof if your PhD ego takes over again.

A person with no or limited knowledge on a subject is still exactly that when ranged against someone with greater knowledge or even greater critical thinking skills, just as they would be in any other environment.

Neither you nor anybody else on this forum knows what my background, professional training or credentials are. We only know so much about you as what you have voluntarily disclosed. This is hardly a basis to start ranking skill levels. On the net you have to rank people by the consistency of what they post. So far, IMO, you have shown wider gaps on your knowledge about details of the Falklands/Malvinas war than myself. Furthermore you have clearly behaved outside the realms of proper academic inquiry process or etiquette, as if the steahltiness and anonimity of being only a nickname on a forum frees you from formal researcher code of conduct bonds. If you would go about turning factual debattes into personal arguments the same way you did on this thread in the real world working environment, it would probably only happen once before you got evicted by your peers or deans. I'm quite sure your "real you" is much sounder and professional than your "internet personna", as if not the case you would not have succeded on your working place in the way you described it and would have become an academic outcast quite rapidly. Thus, to put it in few words, unless you post under your full name and expose yourself for the public evaluation of your published work, you will continue being just BillB, "equal to all the rest of us on the net" and turning threads into unsubstantiated "my dick is bigger than yours" contests when bragging about your credentials.

I look forward to seeing your underlying rationale for raising this subject, and I do hope you have the courtesy to provide one.

Altought I have already surpassed the limits of reasonable courtesy and patience about two full pages ago by putting up with your constant attacks, I will nevertheless oblige one last time.

we established that your premise that a myth had been perpetrated was inaccurrate a long way back

We did not establish such thing. By the contrary, I have proven my innitiall assertions that a myth existed and still exists, and there are written statements on this forum and on this particular thread by at least two different british posters (three if I include you as well) who have either literally echoed the myth, or acknowledged that they were familiar with both versions but were inclined to believe the early british account, even if there is no hard evidence to support it.

even though you have subtly shifted your position by acknowledging that this was done a long time ago in British sources. Something you did not do initially.

No, wrong again. Read it here:

Posted by King Jester Thu 9 Dec 2004 2108

Adam: "Well, there is this myth about argie commandos who went in hard shooting the barracks up"Jamie: "No Adam. You got that all wrong. The myth some people would like us to believe is that the argies went in soft, with teargas or so, when in fact they did blow the place up with grenades."Adam: "No, Jamie. You're wrong. Do you see this is the classic example, find me a witness! The brits weren't even there to see it, were they?"Jamie: "Well, no. Fortunately for them they were gone. As it says HERE , if you click your way to the complete text, argies wanted to kill as many RMs as possible while they still were in bed! "Adam: "In all objectivity, Jamie, that source seems to be overstating things a little. Other sources, as this WELL RESEARCHED ONE does not support such a claim"Jamie: "Well, smarty. They don't give any witness testimony either, do they?. And what about this PICTURE here. It clearly shows the barracks flattened."Adam: "If you read the misleading text twice, you will realize that the damage shown was done "later" in the war. In fact by british bombs. So, not very many hard pieces of evidence left after a couple of 1000lb. hit the building, right?"Jamie: "OK, that picture is irrelevant, as it does not show the barracks as they were after the argie attack. So, now what? How should we tackle this myth?"

I cited three british websites/sources, that is the RAF site (HERE), Naval History Net (WELL RESEARCHED ONE) and Britain Small Wars (PICTURE). The hyperlinks don't work here, but you can try them out on the original post. I provided an example of "the myth" on the RAF site, and the illdated and out of timeframe picture to which Small Wars clings on to support the myth. On the other hand I presented Naval History Net as the source which portrays the correct account of Moody Brook.

As you can evaluate yourself, I made a scientific hypothesis evaluation here: One event (Moody Brook), two possible explanations (generally accepted brit and argie versions), supporting evidence for both, open question: how should be tackle this myth?

Yes, you have made the point that some sources have inaccurate accounts of Moody Brook. But I'd like you to explain your underlying thinking as to exactly why this matters and what it proves. If you cannot do that then your making the point is not worth much.

Not only have I made that point, but also I have made the point that the early, missconceived accounts have shaped british minds in this regard, to the point that the smallest portion of the british population, namely those who are interested and have done some effort reading and educating themselves about the war, are familiar with the correct version, while the rest is happy believing the myth, even though serious british sources have recollected the correct account long time ago.

Replacing the missconception with the truth matters, because it lifts a long standing wrongfull accusation against our troops. It is irrelevant and off topic to this discussion why the landing force had the orders they had, how naive those orders were, or for whatever reason/s the landing troops were there in the first place. The only thing that matters is that we have been accused of "trying to kill as many brits as possible" by some, or at least "of shooting first and asking later" by the rest. When in fact the truth is that our troops made every effort to achieve a bloodless takeover, as it was amply demonstrated at Governor House and even later in the Georgias. Period. No politics to it, no covert intentions. That is the only point I wished to make and have made.

Finally, with ref to "Con", that is the the book called "Boys of the War" or something similar in Spanish by Daniel Con, I believe? The one that makes the claims about doped up Gurkhas.

I had to run a google search to find out what you were talking about. The spelling is Kon, with K. Daniel Kon is a novelist and a movie script writer. He wrote "Los chicos de la guerra" or "Boys of the War", which is fictional story about three conscripts from different social strata, and their experience in war. The novel was written in 1983 and the movie opened in 84. Never minding the fact that Kon is no historian, nor a veteran, and did not write an essay, nor anything which could be considered historical investigation, but a fictional war-drama movie script, I have to say in his defense that by 1984 the myth about the stoned gurkhas, or for that matter the myth about gurkhas slicing the throat of the wounded, was still very popular in Argentina as a direct relict of the war propaganda effort by the Junta. I have not read the novel, but saw the movie.

I shall be contacting the Mythbusters team for a programme to refute the myth that Gurkhas made any major attacks on fixed Argentine opositions during the Falklands Conflict, and that they were supplied with marijuana and Sony Walkmans by the UK Ministry of Defence to make them easier to use as cannon-fodder becasue that is a genuine myth based on a total untruth.

Wish you luck talking to Jamie and Adam. Just don't mention that you think they are a pair of drivelling clowns with strange hair.

BTW, read what I replied to Ox in regards to this topic:

Posted by King Jester Tue 14 Dec 2004 1531

Ox asked: KJ, Have you read the book Los Chicos De Guerra, I think. I read an English translation many years ago and it contained some bizarre accounts of Gurkha attacking Argentine troops whilst on drugs.

We aren´t short on myths this side of the pond either. The gurkhas being source to many myths, i.e. the one BillB mentions, about stoned gurkhas running wildly into MG fire, the other one about gurkhas scalping, slicing the ears or beheading argie corpses (the myth actually saying that gurkhas were paid a a head-price for each argie killed). .... Somehow this turned into a rumor and then into a myth. About the first bit, the stoned gurkhas running beserk, that was mainly war time propaganda, and should be evaluated as such....Believe me when I say, I do my best to bust those myths in spanish speaking fora, as well. Sometimes I get laughter, sometimes anger from other fellow posters. I have moved some to read, though.

had to run a google search to find out what you were talking about. The spelling is Kon, with K. Daniel Kon is a novelist and a movie script writer. He wrote "Los chicos de la guerra" or "Boys of the War", which is fictional story about three conscripts from different social strata, and their experience in war. The novel was written in 1983 and the movie opened in 84. Never minding the fact that Kon is no historian, nor a veteran, and did not write an essay, nor anything which could be considered historical investigation, but a fictional war-drama movie script, I have to say in his defense that by 1984 the myth about the stoned gurkhas, or for that matter the myth about gurkhas slicing the throat of the wounded, was still very popular in Argentina as a direct relict of the war propaganda effort by the Junta. I have not read the novel, but saw the movie.

I read the English translation in 1984 and nowhere did it mention it was a fictional account. I have heard many references to it and again have never heard it called a fictional script. This begs the question why did you not mention this when I first raised the subject? You clearly understood what I was refering to despite my poor spelling and grammar in the title.

Interests:AFV´s of (almost) all eras, specially with desert camos and israeli markings, modern navies and air forces, 20th century wars and conflicts, and a long etc specific to this site.<br />In another order of life, women, muscle cars and european roadsters, hefty food, in that order.<br />Reasons to join this site: wanted to find pics of AFV´s (see above), was quite dissapointed by the lack of imagery in the beginning, but got hooked up with the futile discussions about world politics which take place here regularly.

Posted 17 January 2005 - 2226 PM

Ox wrote:

I read the English translation in 1984 and nowhere did it mention it was a fictional account. I have heard many references to it and again have never heard it called a fictional script. This begs the question why did you not mention this when I first raised the subject? You clearly understood what I was refering to despite my poor spelling and grammar in the title.

I knew about "Los Chicos de la Guerra" and got right away what you were talking about. But I did not recall the authors name at all, so BillBs comments about a certain Con (or Kon, for the instance) did'nt ring a bell. Had to google for it to find out.

Furthermore, I assumed you were talking about the fictional story in the movie (my mistake, may be) when you asked about the "bizarre accounts of battles with the Gurkhas" and if those were considered accurate in Argentina. The movie is without a doubt a fictional story, set more or less on the historical situation, as "Band of Brothers" or "Platoon" may be. Characters are imaginary, unit names, locations and battle descriptions are generic. What the novel/movie captures well though, is the description of the harsh conditions the conscripts suffered on the frontline, and the rejection upon returning home.

The movie is usually described as "based on the novel by Daniel Kon", which I have seen for sell (softcover edition) on bookstores from time to time (re-editions are illustrated with photograms from the movie). As I already pointed out, I saw the movie many years ago and have not read the novel (book to the movie, or movie to the book, or whatever came out first). Kon has written several movie scripts and fictional novels.

Now, what got me thinking, is that there seems to be an "investigative report" by the same Daniel Kon (he has indeed, also writen several investigative reports on the Junta, the peronistas, and other main events in recent argie history), which consists mainly of argie conscripts interviews, called "Los Chicos de la Guerra" as well, adding some confusion to the matter. I was not aware of this "investigative report" till now, and always assumed you were talking about the novel instead. Searching for it on the web I got a couple of hits where this book is quoted and/or credited as source.

If this is the book you reffered to, I apologize for the confusion. I mantain what I had already posted, about the bizarre accounts of drugged Gurkhas: being in a fictional movie or extracted from an "invetigative report", I know it is BS, but many of my fellow countrymen, which includes many former conscript veterans, are indeed eager to believe such myths (untruths).

I will try to find the "real book" , which I may have dismissed more than once thinking it was just another edition of the novel, in a book store or library and get you my feedback on it.

As for the other book we were talking about, the one containing the version about "scare tactic" BBC broadcasts, this one here seems very similar, but the edition I read was quite old, so this new 2002 one is certainly overworked or re-edited.

I have not yet decided how best to respond to your frankly insulting and inaccurate disparagement of my personal and professional integrity. All I will say here is that you have an awful lot to say about something you profess to not care about and claim to be irrelevant. I also think that your habit of demanding 22 carat plated evidence on everything whilst contributing very little yourself (evidence or personal details) comes very close to trolling.

That aside, let’s take a look at your hypothesis, which is:

[quote]“As you can evaluate yourself, I made a scientific hypothesis evaluation here: One event (Moody Brook), two possible explanations (generally accepted brit and argie versions), supporting evidence for both, open question: how should be tackle this myth?Not only have I made that point, but also I have made the point that the early, missconceived accounts have shaped british minds in this regard, to the point that the smallest portion of the british population, namely those who are interested and have done some effort reading and educating themselves about the war, are familiar with the correct version, while the rest is happy believing the myth, even though serious british sources have recollected the correct account long time ago.”[/quote]

According to you this matters because it supports a “long-standing wrongfull [sic] accusation against our [Argentine] troops”. I shall return to this bit, but to deal with your hypothesis first. You claim to have proved your hypothesis and therefore the underlying point. I beg to differ.

First, your hypothesis is flawed, presumably because you are assuming that the Falkland Islands have the same high profile in the UK as the Malvinas have in Argentina. This is simply not the case. I suspect that a majority know nothing about the Falklands Conflict or the islands themselves, and care less. Remember this is the country where history is not a compulsory National Curriculum subject at secondary school level, where recent vox pop surveys showed that a high proportion of respondents thought the Battle of Britain took place in 1066, and had no idea what Auschwitz was or why it was significant. The division is not therefore between a small knowledgeable group and a misinformed mass as you suggest, but between the indifferent uninformed and variably informed. The latter are probably better informed than you assume and whilst less numerous than the former, the disparity is likely to be less marked than you suggest too.

Be that as it may, I would argue you have not proven your hypothesis, flawed or not. This is not because I disagree with the hypothesis, but because you have simply not supported your position with credible evidence.

The evidence you cite consists of your unsupported personal opinion, off the cuff comments by three British posters on a general discussion forum, three websites (only two of which actually support the hypothesis) and a photograph. As I have already pointed out, despite your childlike faith in the sanctity of the photograph as evidence, the latter is of limited reliability. At best it shows that the shell of the Moody Brook barracks were still standing when the picture was taken. It does not prove that the barracks were undamaged because it only shows a limited elevation; for all the viewer knows the other sides of the building could be totally devastated. Neither does it show the interior of the building, which could therefore be seriously damaged without it showing externally. Note that I am inclined to accept the Argentine version that the barracks received no significant damage because it can be verified from other reputable sources. The point here, however, is to refute your evidence and whether you accept it or not, a single photograph, and especially one originating from a military dictatorship that made good use of photographic propaganda, does nothing to support your hypothesis one way or the other.

Your hypothesis therefore rests solely on the idea that two sources (“Britain’s Small Wars” and the MoD RAF websites) can be taken as an accurate reflection of the popular perception of somewhere in the region of 60 million people. This would be a stretch even without the problems inherent in using the web as a source per se. For a start, nowhere near everyone in the UK has access to a computer or indeed the skills to carry out a web search on one, which immediately undermines your use of the medium to support an assertion about the bulk of the British population. More importantly, the vast bulk of stuff on the web is not open to any editorial control or verification. The Small Wars website is a case in point. Despite its attractive lay out and authoritative appearance, it has no independent endorsements, any site that states on the homepage that it will not respond to critical comment is automatically suspect, and there are no source notes for any of the stuff that it cites. The site is therefore little more than a very large statement of the personal opinions of the two individuals who run and maintain it, and I would therefore argue their account of events does not reflect the British public mind, but is simply the result of sloppy research if not outright plagiarism. More on that below.

The latter can also be said of the RAF website, which has clearly relied on the same source. Again, more on that below. I am unsure why anyone would be looking for information on the opening events of the Falklands Conflict on a recruiting website, especially as the RAF were not even involved in the events described. It is interesting to note that the official Army website makes no mention of the conflict at all I can see, and the Royal Navy one does not mention the invasion at all except in passing.

The point here, though, is that neither of the sources you cite provides anything more than the most tangential and flimsy evidence to support your hypothesis. There is, however, a great deal of evidence that the British public as a whole, and not just the minority you claim, have been exposed to information that directly contradicts your alleged myth.

Let’s start with your preferred medium, the net. I did four consecutive Google searches using slightly different search terms. The RAF website did not show up on the first two pages on any of them, although the Small Wars site did. These sites also came up consistently on the first or second pages:

None of these mentions your myth, and the first two are far more credible than the two you cite in support of it. The first actually includes a referenced quote from Sabarots’ account, and the second merely gives a bald statement of the facts. Including the third website you cite (Naval History Net which also appeared in the first two pages) this means that a repeated random web search threw up one site including the inaccurate account of events against one accurate citation, three that refer to the invasion without the myth, and fifteen that make no mention of the invasion at all. By your standard of evidence this is sufficient in itself to disprove your hypothesis, showing as it does that your alleged myth is very from being accepted or even widespread. This also strongly suggests that you have merely cited the two sources that support your position while deliberately ignoring the rest, which is a common ploy by those pushing a personal agenda in my experience.

Whichever, there is much more compelling evidence to be found outside the web. First, you dismiss British publications that provide an accurate rendering of events at Moody Brook on the grounds that only “the smallest portion of the british [sic] population” have used these to “educate” themselves. This, in my considered opinion, demonstrates an ignorance of British reading habits and breadth of interest in military history. The latter is among the fastest expanding publishing sectors in the UK and runs purely on sales. The first work to give an accurate account was Martin Middlebrook’s The Fight for the ‘Malvinas’: The Argentine Forces in the Falklands War (London: Viking, 1989), which provides an account that includes testimony from the commander of the force that attacked Moody Brook (Middlebrook, Malvinas Penguin edition, p. 30). Last time I checked a bookshop this work was still in print, which means it must have sold by the thousands in the sixteen years since it first appeared. It is therefore more likely to have shaped British popular perceptions than the to obscure websites you cite as the sole evidence to support your alleged myth.

The best evidence to refute your hypothesis, however, comes from TV. Channel 4 commissioned and screened The Falklands War in 1992, and released a book of the series at the same time – Denys Blakeway, The Falklands War (London: Sidgewick & Jackson, 1992). I believe the TV documentary is still on sale from Channel 4. Neither medium repeats your alleged myth. On the contrary they merely say “…the occupants of Government House heard a series of bangs and firing at Moody Brook…” and feature an interview with Rear-Admiral Busser in which he states that the Argentine plan was framed to avoid bloodshed (Blakeway, p. 39). The original screening was made after a great deal of advertising and in a prime time slot, it has been screened numerous times on terrestrial TV and turns up regularly on the UKTV History satellite/cable channel. All this means it will have been seen by literally millions of British TV viewers, which in turn suggests it is far more likely to have shaped the British public mind than any earlier, inaccurate accounts repeated on two obscure websites.

This brings us to where exactly the ignorant British masses are supposed to have got their erroneous account of events. Although you refer repeatedly to British claims that the Argentines set out to cause maximum casualties in their invasion, you do not provide any reference to support your assertion. As far as I can tell it comes from Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins The Battle for the Falklands (London: BCA, 1983), which contains the following: “But their [the Argentine attackers] subsequent tactics suggested no misgivings about causing casualties. In a noisy full-scale attack, they hurled phosphorous grenades into the barracks and raked the rooms with automatic fire.” (Hastings & Jenkins, p. 73).

This is clearly at odds with later accounts, but the disparity is easily explained. Hastings was relying on accounts from Major Norman and other members of NP8901, who heard the explosions and gunfire from Sabarots’ fire power display at Moody Brook after finding the barracks unoccupied (Middlebrook, Malvinas, p. 30). Neither they nor Hastings saw Moody Brook barracks until after the liberation of the Islands, by which time they had been destroyed by British shellfire and bombing. As frontline company commanders and war correspondents do not tend to have access to operational records, their assumption that the damage was due to Argentine action in the invasion is reasonable if misplaced. The inaccuracy was not therefore deliberate, but merely an accurate rendition of the matter based on the information available when the account was published. In fact, the possible shortcomings of the account were admitted by the authors: “We would like to think that this book is more than instant journalism, if necessarily less than instant history. Let us call it an interim report on Britain’s war in the South Atlantic, based overwhelmingly on the testimony of the participants, at home and abroad, at sea and ashore.” (Hastings & Jenkins, p. ix)

The authors therefore acknowledged that theirs was not a considered and properly researched account, and took the trouble to point this out explicitly. The fact that the two accounts you cite seem to have plagiarised their version of events at Moody Brook virtually verbatim from this account is therefore more a matter of sloppy research than any reflection of the British public mind.

It also has to pointed out that this inaccuracy could have been exposed and corrected much sooner than was the case, and responsibility for this lies with the Argentines who refused to assist the author of the first properly researched British account. Martin Middlebrook’s standard practice is to interview participants from both sides to provide a balanced account. However, when he tried to do this while researching Operation Corporate:

“But my application for a visa to visit Argentina – made when the military Junta was still in power – was ignored; my book was half written by the time the new civilian government came to power. I wrote to several potential helpers and tried to obtain material by post. But my protests of an impartial approach were not accepted.” (Middlebrook, Task Force: The Falklands War, 1982 (London: Penguin, 1987, p. 13)

Middlebrook therefore had little choice but to repeat the inaccuracy cited by Hastings & Jenkins because despite his best efforts, there was no information available to contradict it. Had the Argentines concerned behaved with less petulance, therefore, an accurate account of events at Moody Brook could have been published four years before the appearance of Middlebrook’s The Fight for the ‘Malvinas’” in 1989.

So there we have it. Your hypothesis was flawed, being based on a false premise, the evidence you cite has been exposed as inaccurate and marginally relevant, and your assertion of the existence of a widespread myth in the British public mind have been comprehensively rebutted with verifiable and credible counter-evidence. As I see it, you now have three options. You can acknowledge that your hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited, you can present some additional evidence to back it up, or you can ignore all of this and revert to your standard practice of ignoring and denigrating what you find unpalatable. To be perfectly frank I don’t really care one way or the other.

Finally, with reference to this:

[QUOTE]King Jester wrote: “Replacing the missconception with the truth matters, because it lifts a long standing wrongfull accusation against our troops. It is irrelevant and off topic to this discussion why the landing force had the orders they had, how naive those orders were, or for whatever reason/s the landing troops were there in the first place. The only thing that matters is that we have been accused of "trying to kill as many brits as possible" by some, or at least "of shooting first and asking later" by the rest. When in fact the truth is that our troops made every effort to achieve a bloodless takeover, as it was amply demonstrated at Governor House and even later in the Georgias. Period. No politics to it, no covert intentions. That is the only point I wished to make and have made.”[QUOTE]

Leaving aside that debunking your claim of a myth about Moody Brook also disproves your alleged wrongful accusation, I should be very grateful if you could clear something up for me – why exactly is this so important?